SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014640.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the admissibility and limited use of 'similar acts' evidence. The judge instructs the jury that such evidence cannot be used to prove bad character, but may be used to determine intent, lack of mistake, or the existence of a common scheme or plan.
DOJ-OGR-00014639.jpg
This document is page 239 of 257 from a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains Jury Instruction No. 47 regarding how jurors should weigh 'Expert Testimony' and the beginning of Instruction No. 48 regarding 'Similar Act Evidence' offered by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014638.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 767, filed 08/10/22, Page 238 of 257) containing a legal instruction (Instruction No. 46) titled 'Law Enforcement and Government Employee Witnesses.' It outlines how a jury should evaluate inconsistencies in a witness's testimony and the credibility of law enforcement or government employee witnesses, noting that their testimony is not inherently more credible than an ordinary witness and can be challenged by defense counsel based on potential personal or professional interests.
DOJ-OGR-00014637.jpg
This document is page 237 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge, specifically addressing the use of pseudonyms for witness privacy due to media attention, and 'Instruction No. 45' regarding the credibility of witnesses and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. The judge instructs the jury that prior inconsistent statements should be used to evaluate credibility, not as affirmative evidence of Maxwell's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014636.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically jury instructions from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The text guides the jury on how to assess the credibility of a witness who is a convicted felon, instructing them to use their own judgment, experience, and common sense to determine the weight of the testimony. It clarifies that a prior conviction is a factor to consider but does not automatically require them to disregard the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014635.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It instructs the jury on how to evaluate the credibility of witness testimony, advising them on how to handle potential falsehoods, inconsistencies, and the possibility of a witness having an interest in the outcome of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014634.jpg
This document is page 234 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the burden of proof, specifically noting that guilt cannot be inferred solely from association with wrongdoers. It also begins 'Instruction No. 44,' detailing how jurors should evaluate the credibility, demeanor, and honesty of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00014633.jpg
This legal document is a jury charge from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It provides the jury with the legal definition of an 'inference' and instructs them on how to properly use inferences when weighing evidence presented by the government and the defense. The document specifically prohibits the jury from inferring that Ms. Maxwell is guilty of criminal conduct solely based on her presence at the scene of the crime.
DOJ-OGR-00014632.jpg
This document is page 232 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions (the Charge) regarding the definition and weight of circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence, and Instruction No. 43 regarding inferences. The judge explicitly instructs the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00014628.jpg
This legal document is a jury charge from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It instructs the jury on the concept of "conscious avoidance" or "willful blindness," explaining that if a defendant deliberately avoids confirming a high probability of criminal activity, this avoidance can be legally considered the equivalent of actual knowledge. This instruction is provided to guide the jury's deliberations, particularly concerning conspiracy counts against the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00014627.jpg
This document is page 227 of the jury instructions (Charge) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The text outlines legal standards for considering co-conspirator statements made in the defendant's absence and introduces Instruction No. 39 regarding 'Conscious Avoidance.' The judge explains that the jury may consider whether the defendant 'deliberately closed her eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious' when determining if she acted knowingly.
DOJ-OGR-00014626.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 38) from a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It instructs the jury on the legal principles of conspiracy, explaining that even a lawful act can be part of a conspiracy and that all members are liable for the foreseeable acts of their coconspirators done in furtherance of the scheme. The instruction clarifies that if the defendant is found to be a member of the conspiracy, the actions of other members can be used as evidence against them.
DOJ-OGR-00014624.jpg
This legal document outlines specific actions taken between 2001 and 2004 as part of a conspiracy charge. It details how Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and other employees sent gifts (including lingerie) to a woman named Carolyn and repeatedly called her to schedule massages for Epstein. The document concludes with a legal clarification that for a conspiracy conviction, it is sufficient to prove that any member of the conspiracy committed an overt act, not necessarily the defendant (Ms. Maxwell) herself.
DOJ-OGR-00014622.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, details overt acts from an indictment related to conspiracy charges. It alleges that between 1994 and 2002, Maxwell, along with co-conspirator Epstein, engaged in sexual abuse and trafficking of minors identified as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn. The alleged acts occurred in New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00014621.jpg
This document is page 221 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions (Charge) specifically explaining the legal definition of conspiracy, withdrawal from a conspiracy, and 'Instruction No. 36' regarding the 'Third Element' of Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law (Counts One, Three, and Five). The text defines the requirement of an 'overt act' beyond mere agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00014620.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically a judge's charge to a jury in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The text outlines the legal requirements for finding someone guilty of conspiracy, emphasizing that mere presence, association, or knowledge of the plan is insufficient. The judge instructs that the jury must find that Ms. Maxwell actively and knowingly participated with the intent to further the conspiracy's unlawful goals, regardless of whether she stood to gain financially.
DOJ-OGR-00014619.jpg
This document is page 219 of a court transcript (Document 767, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal standards for conspiracy as applied to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The text explains that the government must prove knowledge and intent, but clarifies that Maxwell did not need to know every detail or member of the conspiracy, nor did she need to be involved from the beginning to be held responsible for the conspiracy's activities.
DOJ-OGR-00014618.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely jury instructions, in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The text defines the legal standards for 'willfully and knowingly' entering a conspiracy, stating that the actions must be a 'conscious objective' and not accidental. It instructs that Ms. Maxwell's knowledge must be inferred from evidence, such as conversations she was party to or present for.
DOJ-OGR-00014617.jpg
This document is page 217 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Court is providing jury instructions regarding Count Five, charging Ghislaine Maxwell with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors between 2001 and 2004. It details Instruction No. 35, which explains the burden of proof required to establish Maxwell's membership in the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00014616.jpg
This document is page 216 of a court transcript (Document 767) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding 'Count Three,' specifically outlining the requirements to prove a conspiracy to transport minors for illegal sexual activity between 1994 and 2004. The text explains that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant agreed with another person to commit these acts.
DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
This document is page 214 of a court transcript (Document 767) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal definition of a 'conspiracy.' The text explains that a conspiracy consists of a mutual understanding, express or implied, to violate the law, and notes that direct evidence of an explicit agreement is not required, as circumstantial evidence and conduct can prove the existence of such an agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00014613.jpg
This document is page 213 of 257 from the court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 33 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the legal elements of 'Conspiracy to violate federal law.' The text explains that a conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act and at least one overt act, regardless of the conspiracy's ultimate success.
DOJ-OGR-00014612.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a charge or jury instruction from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the federal crime of conspiracy by quoting States Code, Section 371, and explains the legal concept to the jury. The document specifies that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the intended crime was not completed and outlines the elements the government must prove for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014611.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, specifically a jury charge in the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE against Ms. Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the legal definition and tests for 'aiding and abetting' by presenting three specific questions for the jury to consider. The document also introduces Instruction No. 31 concerning conspiracy charges under Title 18 for Counts One, Three, and Five of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00014610.jpg
This document is page 210 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains the judge's charge to the jury specifically defining the legal standards for 'aiding and abetting' regarding Counts Two, Four, and Six. The text explains that mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient for conviction; the government must prove the defendant willfully sought to help the crime succeed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity